Were this to actually happen, I still wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he were to fall victim to an unfortunate "accident" upon his return to America.
I wonder if it would be possible to build our own truly decentralized "swarm-net" using a mesh of devices that talk directly to each other. Because it's looking more and more like we need something exacly like that.
I'm envisioning some sort of wireless uplink bridging device with a zero-configuration discovery protocol that seeks out and automatically connects nearby sibling devices. It would need to a wireless protocol with better range than 802.11, have distributed DNS and be IPv6-only between nodes. Such a device could be connected to a router's WAN port to serve as the single uplink or to a LAN port and serve as a bridging device to connect to Internet and "swarm-net" sites. We could keep on using all of the great Internet technologies and protocols. Everything would be encrypted. E-VREY-THING.
Obviously, adoption would be the biggest hurdle. But, yeah, we need something like that.
I know Google has a lot of computational prowess when it comes to user data, so I say with some hesitation that this ruling makes no sense.
Isn't readily accessible? In five minutes, any member of the "public" can get a laptop, find an open hotspot and run Wireshark in promiscuous mode. Sounds "readily" to me.
Now let me introduce you to my friends, Mr. and Mrs. Nipple Clamp and their neighbor, Sr. Electric Current. Or you can just add the message back onto your website and we can be done here.
Look, I respect Cory. I think he's a pretty good author and an even better freedoms advocate, but if you're betting on the technicality of alerting through inaction instead of action, I don't think you'll like the odds.
Encryption is mostly a matter of trust; the technological aspect is of comparatively minor consideration.
End-to-end encryption is meaningless if there's backdoor. The NSA can compel Google to install a backdoor and then gag them. Google cannot tell you about it. For all we know, they are already sending every search you execute to the NSA's analysis servers. I'd bet on it. And they cannot tell us. It doesn't matter if you have HTTPS Everywhere, because it's meaningless as the data becomes cleartext, by necessity, once it reaches the server.
Any time you need to trust a third-party without full disclosure, you can be sure that your data is not secure. And how do you know it's full disclosure? They could just be claiming full disclosure and be gagged from telling you about a backdoor. They could release the complete source code, then add in the backdoor, at the NSA's behest, after the release and you could not possibly know about it.. Hell, even if it were some local software, fully open source, and they gave you a checksum, and you compiled it yourself, and the compiler was open source, you still might not know about it.
In REDACTED the US Department of Homeland Security REDACTED REDACTED and, under the direction of REDACTED, REDACTED of the National Security Agency, implemented REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED to REDACTED, REDACTED and REDACTED. Additionally programs were setup to REDACTED REDACTED and REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED using REDACTED. The methods included REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED as well as REDACTED REDACTED.
Heh... there's a thought: that the occasional HTTPS site you visit without a signed cert -- y'know, when your browser gives you a big, nasty security warning -- could actually be *more* secure.
You seem to be confusing your freedom of mobility - which you obviously have - vs. your desire to complete your trip in a certain elapsed time
Well, technically, it's boss's desire to have me at work on time. Oh, and my desire to eat food which I can pay for with the paycheque from the job that I'm able to get to on time, in the home that I'm able to pay for with the job that I'm able to get to on time... but yeah, not driving would totally work if you're living on the street!
I use Osmand (gmaps still works fine, BTW), like hell I give Google all my data, remote wipe won't work in any case because I have no data on my plan, I use Aquamail instead Gmail and I rarely play games.
I've disabled Google Play Services and there are no problems because I don't expect mommy Google to do everything for me.
2. Penang, Malaysia, 2006: They had me open up my laptop and start it. The guard then picked it up, held it up high to look at the bottom, then lost his grip and dropped it. It bounced off the conveyor, and landed on, then cartwheeled down the flight of steps immediately behind the conveyor all the way down to the next floor. The guard looked absolutely horrified and practically fell down the steps himself going after it and bringing it back up to me, apologising profusely all the while, then waited while I made sure it still worked. I'm posting with that laptop now, BTW, which I still keep around for reading stuff online when I'm too lazy to get the good one out of my bag.
He could have written you a ten thousand word essay on how he was so profoundly sorry about what happened and he'd still be an asshole for not reimbursing you for the damage or replacing it on his own dime.
In short, there is always, and has always been, some fear du jour that will trigger stupid when dealing with law enforcement of any department in any country. The US in particular just seems to have a lot of them.
The law itself is not "online." Perhaps it is by a matter of incidence (it is likely published online, on a government website), but not inheritance; and surely not what you meant by your choice of phrasing.
It is categorically an idea, not a physical noun, and therefore, cannot be contained within something. It certainly can't be entirely contained "online."
The title should be: Law Banning Online Discussion of Current Affairs Comes into Effect.
Slashdot Mirror
Were this to actually happen, I still wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he were to fall victim to an unfortunate "accident" upon his return to America.
Back to the days when it was just dumb pipes.
I wonder if it would be possible to build our own truly decentralized "swarm-net" using a mesh of devices that talk directly to each other. Because it's looking more and more like we need something exacly like that.
I'm envisioning some sort of wireless uplink bridging device with a zero-configuration discovery protocol that seeks out and automatically connects nearby sibling devices. It would need to a wireless protocol with better range than 802.11, have distributed DNS and be IPv6-only between nodes. Such a device could be connected to a router's WAN port to serve as the single uplink or to a LAN port and serve as a bridging device to connect to Internet and "swarm-net" sites. We could keep on using all of the great Internet technologies and protocols. Everything would be encrypted. E-VREY-THING.
Obviously, adoption would be the biggest hurdle. But, yeah, we need something like that.
Can you trust anything from the NSA and any number of other three letter agencies?
As opposed to Derpatology, the study of felines that want to haz cheezburgers.
They're too busy chasing after precocious people with libertarian ideals that could threaten the establishment and bullying them into suicide.
I know Google has a lot of computational prowess when it comes to user data, so I say with some hesitation that this ruling makes no sense.
Isn't readily accessible? In five minutes, any member of the "public" can get a laptop, find an open hotspot and run Wireshark in promiscuous mode. Sounds "readily" to me.
Because I was pretty sure Windows tablets were already oblivious.
If you're just discovering that now, you're late to the game.
I thought his thing was butt chugging ... or something
Now let me introduce you to my friends, Mr. and Mrs. Nipple Clamp and their neighbor, Sr. Electric Current. Or you can just add the message back onto your website and we can be done here.
Look, I respect Cory. I think he's a pretty good author and an even better freedoms advocate, but if you're betting on the technicality of alerting through inaction instead of action, I don't think you'll like the odds.
Encryption is mostly a matter of trust; the technological aspect is of comparatively minor consideration.
End-to-end encryption is meaningless if there's backdoor. The NSA can compel Google to install a backdoor and then gag them. Google cannot tell you about it. For all we know, they are already sending every search you execute to the NSA's analysis servers. I'd bet on it. And they cannot tell us. It doesn't matter if you have HTTPS Everywhere, because it's meaningless as the data becomes cleartext, by necessity, once it reaches the server.
Any time you need to trust a third-party without full disclosure, you can be sure that your data is not secure. And how do you know it's full disclosure? They could just be claiming full disclosure and be gagged from telling you about a backdoor. They could release the complete source code, then add in the backdoor, at the NSA's behest, after the release and you could not possibly know about it.. Hell, even if it were some local software, fully open source, and they gave you a checksum, and you compiled it yourself, and the compiler was open source, you still might not know about it.
It's not just privacy that's dead; it's trust.
A library.
Except a library is free and doesn't install malware (also known as DRM) on my computer.
So what's the attraction again?
Homeland , pg. 133-137.
In REDACTED the US Department of Homeland Security REDACTED REDACTED and, under the direction of REDACTED, REDACTED of the National Security Agency, implemented REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED to REDACTED, REDACTED and REDACTED. Additionally programs were setup to REDACTED REDACTED and REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED using REDACTED. The methods included REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED as well as REDACTED REDACTED.
Signed,
Fuck You Citizens
Heh ... there's a thought: that the occasional HTTPS site you visit without a signed cert -- y'know, when your browser gives you a big, nasty security warning -- could actually be *more* secure.
You could just slip the phone into your pocket for five damn seconds
Right, this was precisely my point.
You seem to be confusing your freedom of mobility - which you obviously have - vs. your desire to complete your trip in a certain elapsed time
Well, technically, it's boss's desire to have me at work on time. Oh, and my desire to eat food which I can pay for with the paycheque from the job that I'm able to get to on time, in the home that I'm able to pay for with the job that I'm able to get to on time... but yeah, not driving would totally work if you're living on the street!
Mine, I wouldn't worry about. Your mom's on other hand...
I use Osmand (gmaps still works fine, BTW), like hell I give Google all my data, remote wipe won't work in any case because I have no data on my plan, I use Aquamail instead Gmail and I rarely play games.
I've disabled Google Play Services and there are no problems because I don't expect mommy Google to do everything for me.
Settings > Apps > Google Play Services > Disable
2. Penang, Malaysia, 2006: They had me open up my laptop and start it. The guard then picked it up, held it up high to look at the bottom, then lost his grip and dropped it. It bounced off the conveyor, and landed on, then cartwheeled down the flight of steps immediately behind the conveyor all the way down to the next floor. The guard looked absolutely horrified and practically fell down the steps himself going after it and bringing it back up to me, apologising profusely all the while, then waited while I made sure it still worked. I'm posting with that laptop now, BTW, which I still keep around for reading stuff online when I'm too lazy to get the good one out of my bag.
He could have written you a ten thousand word essay on how he was so profoundly sorry about what happened and he'd still be an asshole for not reimbursing you for the damage or replacing it on his own dime.
In short, there is always, and has always been, some fear du jour that will trigger stupid when dealing with law enforcement of any department in any country. The US in particular just seems to have a lot of them.
All your face are belong to us
Do you speak it?
The law itself is not "online." Perhaps it is by a matter of incidence (it is likely published online, on a government website), but not inheritance; and surely not what you meant by your choice of phrasing.
It is categorically an idea, not a physical noun, and therefore, cannot be contained within something. It certainly can't be entirely contained "online."
The title should be: Law Banning Online Discussion of Current Affairs Comes into Effect.
Phrasing is important. Words mean shit.